Hey I'm rich, my stuff's big, I need a fast lane. did mention I'm rich.

[fromderinside]

Huh. When Time Warner Cable and Comcast put their cable infrastructure in it was for their cable product. They then found out it couldalso be used for Internet access. They built the infrastructure for their product and now their competitors are usig their infrasture. It's a different situation then normal, but Netflix is relying on a competitor to provide their service. If Netflix wanted to, they could build out a network structure to reach homes.

Gee. What is it about the government providing incentives, payments, for these risk adverse 'risk' takers to put in cable and fiber that makes this private. Oh, I get it. If they did have cable and fiber then they could market their products to potential customers. Then, after they got After they got in their cable and got their territories, they found another government capability could use their cables if only the government would set up a system they could exploit.

What is it about these job creators anyway. They have money but they won't spend it to add value to their business unless the get paid to do so. Worse they are granted use of government developed (the people's) product and they charge the people to use it because, well, they have to maintain the cables for which the government paid.

What a deal. If you have money you're a job creator sos you shouldn't be taxed. But as a job creator it is your privilege to exploit the people's development at their expense only if the people also provide funding for development and product.

Don't get me going.....

 

[coloradoatheist]

However we forget it's private content going over another private company's infrastructure to get to your private computer. The hard part is that's a little different than most transactions because you can have competitors products going over a competitor's property. It is like McDonalds having to sell Burger King's hamburgers.

No, it's like McDonalds owning the road and charging Burger King extra to allow its customers to get there.

But it's slightly different here. McDonalds built the roads so people can get to McDonalds and buy BigMacs. Now BK comes in and says we don't want to build roads so we want to use McDonalds roads.

The roads were built before hamburgers were invented. There was no Netflix or really entertainment streaming when the fiber optic infrastructure for the WWW was being put down.

Huh. When Time Warner Cable and Comcast put their cable infrastructure in it was for their cable product. They then found out it couldalso be used for Internet access. They built the infrastructure for their product and now their competitors are usig their infrasture.

The major infrastructure isn't the line going to your home. The skeleton of fiber optic that crosses the nation that makes Streaming video possible was not installed by the cable companies. AT&T and Verizon would probably be the only entertainment providers that put in any of the major continental line.

So you have private companies that have the infrasture across the country though the local providers have other infrasture. So AT&T and Verizon can decide how the want to price the access to their infrastructure.

 

[fromderinside]

So is there anything to the pairing of 'economically reasonable' with abandonment of 'we are all created equal'?

prod, prod.....

Except it's equivalent to you buying a book from amazon and instead of using regular mail they will use UPS to send it faster. The question is how much faster and much the other side can charge for the added benefit.

Wow. So UPS develops a service modelled after USPS that charges people more to get products to addresses, another government provided item, using infrastructure, another government provided asset, using equipment paid for with government incentives and technology, to get it there faster because the government is unwilling to fund the USPS properly to carry out a public service because they want the service to be privatized.

Well it would work just as well and cost less if the government did it. In fact it was so profitable that the private sector, those lovely little job creators, bought off enough votes to spin off the business costing companies and citizens many billions of dollars more for mail service. Of course they left the least profitable parts as responsibility of the USPS and cut funding so that instead of a profit the USPS should show a deficit.

Except it didn't. So congress imposed draconian requirements on USPS to completely prefund retirement. That finally did the trick. Now repellicans (sic)are strutting about saying how superior the private sector is at the package delivery business using retirement formulas OKed by the government that are much more lenient than those imposed on the government enterprise.

Please. The internets is supposed to be be user neutral permitting anyone, no matter how well funded to have as complete an access as possible without economically reasonable constraints imposed.

Do you really want something like what happened to the mail system to happen to our other information system?

I certainly don't.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So you have private companies that have the infrasture across the country though the local providers have other infrasture. So AT&T and Verizon can decide how the want to price the access to their infrastructure.

They already were. I'm pretty certain the Government wasn't forcing them to give access for free.

The question is whether they can arbitrarily choose who they charge higher to based on who the customer is... instead of what access the customer is trying to obtain. Soooo... at McDonalds, a BK employee comes in, yeah, that'll be $50 for the Big Mac for you.

It becomes a bit worse when the internet providers are slowing down their competition.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So you have private companies that have the infrasture across the country though the local providers have other infrasture. So AT&T and Verizon can decide how the want to price the access to their infrastructure.

They already were. I'm pretty certain the Government wasn't forcing them to give access for free.

The question is whether they can arbitrarily choose who they charge higher to based on who the customer is... instead of what access the customer is trying to obtain. Soooo... at McDonalds, a BK employee comes in, yeah, that'll be $50 for the Big Mac for you.

It becomes a bit worse when the internet providers are slowing down their competition.

Their model already does this with one customer who wants to connect sites on their infrastructure.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So is there anything to the pairing of 'economically reasonable' with abandonment of 'we are all created equal'?

prod, prod.....

Except it's equivalent to you buying a book from amazon and instead of using regular mail they will use UPS to send it faster. The question is how much faster and much the other side can charge for the added benefit.

Wow. So UPS develops a service modelled after USPS that charges people more to get products to addresses, another government provided item, using infrastructure, another government provided asset, using equipment paid for with government incentives and technology, to get it there faster because the government is unwilling to fund the USPS properly to carry out a public service because they want the service to be privatized.

Well it would work just as well and cost less if the government did it. In fact it was so profitable that the private sector, those lovely little job creators, bought off enough votes to spin off the business costing companies and citizens many billions of dollars more for mail service. Of course they left the least profitable parts as responsibility of the USPS and cut funding so that instead of a profit the USPS should show a deficit.

Except it didn't. So congress imposed draconian requirements on USPS to completely prefund retirement. That finally did the trick. Now repellicans (sic)are strutting about saying how superior the private sector is at the package delivery business using retirement formulas OKed by the government that are much more lenient than those imposed on the government enterprise.

Please. The internets is supposed to be be user neutral permitting anyone, no matter how well funded to have as complete an access as possible without economically reasonable constraints imposed.

Do you really want something like what happened to the mail system to happen to our other information system?

I certainly don't.

The Internet was also built at a time when it sent black and white emails back and forth and it didn't matter if it tooks seconds or hours to get there. Now that services depend a different service then it's a plan to change. And for this case I believe it's making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[fromderinside]

Their model already does this with one customer who wants to connect sites on their infrastructure.

... and the effects are already palpable. Joe gets to up the cost of your request for a share because he buys internet that is faster than that provided to you between you and the stock exchange. Do you really want that kind of business to succeed? When Monster Films gets permission to send movies at gazillabit per second for their films they also get the capability to use that capability to infringe on your stock trading, your transmission of ideas they don't like, your freedom from being harassed, etc.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Their model already does this with one customer who wants to connect sites on their infrastructure.

... and the effects are already palpable. Joe gets to up the cost of your request for a share because he buys internet that is faster than that provided to you between you and the stock exchange. Do you really want that kind of business to succeed? When Monster Films gets permission to send movies at gazillabit per second for their films they also get the capability to use that capability to infringe on your stock trading, your transmission of ideas they don't like, your freedom from being harassed, etc.

Except that is an issue that ISPs have to worry about on a daily basis now with their capacity planning. Wouldn't be that much different with adding the different queueing.

 

[KeepTalking]

So is there anything to the pairing of 'economically reasonable' with abandonment of 'we are all created equal'?

prod, prod.....

How does that apply here? Do we consider it morally wrong that United has a first class section that has shorter lines for people who pay more?

But that is not the situation here. The ISPs are already charging customers more for higher bandwidth limits, which would be analogous to buying a first class ticket. Now they want to charge the content providers to "speed up" (which is actually a payment not to slow down) their traffic to the customers who are already paying for faster service. So, for your analogy to hold true, we would see a situation where you have paid for first class accommodation, but when you arrive to take your seat you find that there is no difference between first class and coach because the airline is trying to get seat manufacturers to pay more for the privilege of providing you with a more comfortable seat.

The analogy does apply here because what a company would be paying more for is that when there is a line a company pays extra to have the priviledge of being in the shorter first class line compared to having to wait in the general class line. The get slightly better service but everybody arrives at the same destination but first class passengers are the first to get off the plane.

That's not it at all, the entity being charged extra in this case is not the end user of the product, be that airline seats, or internets. The end user has already paid to have a certain class of service provided, and has been receiving that service for years. Now, the service provider is dipping into the other end of the line, charging the user on one end, and the content provider on the other end for what the user has already paid. So, it is very much like arriving with your first class ticket, expecting a first class experience, but being told you are going to have to deal with a coach experience because the airline has not yet been able to extort more money from manufacturer of first class seats. It's so very much the opposite of what anyone should expect from a market experience, that I don't see how anyone who is not a part of the industry reaping the profits can defend the practice.

Except it's equivalent to you buying a book from amazon and instead of using regular mail they will use UPS to send it faster. The question is how much faster and much the other side can charge for the added benefit.

More like you buy a book from Amazon, and pay for overnight shipping, then Amazon turns around and tells the publisher of that book that you want their book tomorrow, but they will only ship it overnight if the publisher also pays for overnight shipping. The question is how can anyone defend such screwing over of the customer. The only way they can even dream of doing it is because there is absolutely no competition for the actual delivery of the service. The dream has only become a reality because they own the regulators who would otherwise stand in their way.

 

[fromderinside]

Actually they don't and that's the problem. If my cable isn't as fast as your fiber I lose and I don't care what any involved ISP's policy happens to be. We need to time, quantity, and complexity, neutralize the internet if we're going to use money as a judging metric. Its ridiculous to go with 'economically reasonable' (on its face only) platitudinous approach.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So is there anything to the pairing of 'economically reasonable' with abandonment of 'we are all created equal'?

prod, prod.....

How does that apply here? Do we consider it morally wrong that United has a first class section that has shorter lines for people who pay more?

But that is not the situation here. The ISPs are already charging customers more for higher bandwidth limits, which would be analogous to buying a first class ticket. Now they want to charge the content providers to "speed up" (which is actually a payment not to slow down) their traffic to the customers who are already paying for faster service. So, for your analogy to hold true, we would see a situation where you have paid for first class accommodation, but when you arrive to take your seat you find that there is no difference between first class and coach because the airline is trying to get seat manufacturers to pay more for the privilege of providing you with a more comfortable seat.

The analogy does apply here because what a company would be paying more for is that when there is a line a company pays extra to have the priviledge of being in the shorter first class line compared to having to wait in the general class line. The get slightly better service but everybody arrives at the same destination but first class passengers are the first to get off the plane.

That's not it at all, the entity being charged extra in this case is not the end user of the product, be that airline seats, or internets. The end user has already paid to have a certain class of service provided, and has been receiving that service for years. Now, the service provider is dipping into the other end of the line, charging the user on one end, and the content provider on the other end for what the user has already paid. So, it is very much like arriving with your first class ticket, expecting a first class experience, but being told you are going to have to deal with a coach experience because the airline has not yet been able to extort more money from manufacturer of first class seats. It's so very much the opposite of what anyone should expect from a market experience, that I don't see how anyone who is not a part of the industry reaping the profits can defend the practice.

Except it's equivalent to you buying a book from amazon and instead of using regular mail they will use UPS to send it faster. The question is how much faster and much the other side can charge for the added benefit.

More like you buy a book from Amazon, and pay for overnight shipping, then Amazon turns around and tells the publisher of that book that you want their book tomorrow, but they will only ship it overnight if the publisher also pays for overnight shipping. The question is how can anyone defend such screwing over of the customer. The only way they can even dream of doing it is because there is absolutely no competition for the actual delivery of the service. The dream has only become a reality because they own the regulators who would otherwise stand in their way.

Except the current model of the Internet is best effort. We will try and deliver it and and if it doesn't get there so what. This would be amazon saying hey I would like to overnight this package and hope it gets there a little bit faster than normal effort.

 

[KeepTalking]

Except the current model of the Internet is best effort. We will try and deliver it and and if it doesn't get there so what. This would be amazon saying hey I would like to overnight this package and hope it gets there a little bit faster than normal effort.

No, that's the old model. The new model is best effort only if you pay us more. We will slow down your traffic in favor of our upcoming service that will compete with yours, and we could give a shit about our actual customers who are already paying us to provide unfettered access to your service, because they have no choice, and because profit$.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Their model already does this with one customer who wants to connect sites on their infrastructure.

... and the effects are already palpable. Joe gets to up the cost of your request for a share because he buys internet that is faster than that provided to you between you and the stock exchange. Do you really want that kind of business to succeed? When Monster Films gets permission to send movies at gazillabit per second for their films they also get the capability to use that capability to infringe on your stock trading, your transmission of ideas they don't like, your freedom from being harassed, etc.

Except that is an issue that ISPs have to worry about on a daily basis now with their capacity planning. Wouldn't be that much different with adding the different queueing.

That's odd, because I pay for a certain throughput on my Internet. The ISPs actually advertise the necessity for the higher speeds to do streaming video! And now for some reason, I'm supposed to accept that despite paying for a faster download speed, I'm going to accept that they can throttle arbitrary streaming video providers? What in the world am I paying for then?!

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except the current model of the Internet is best effort. We will try and deliver it and and if it doesn't get there so what. This would be amazon saying hey I would like to overnight this package and hope it gets there a little bit faster than normal effort.

No, that's the old model. The new model is best effort only if you pay us more. We will slow down your traffic in favor of our upcoming service that will compete with yours, and we could give a shit about our actual customers who are already paying us to provide unfettered access to your service, because they have no choice, and because profit$.

Except what the article had and the easiest to implement for the telcos is just allowing a customer to prioritize their traffic so when their is congestion, it goes to the front of the line.

And what people don't understand. When you by that 10Mb home service, it's not 10Mb service to any site, just 10Mb to the central office.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Looking through AT&T TOS, seems like they can get away with anything up to but not including violent felonies.

AT&T MAKES NO WARRANTY THAT (i) THE SERVICES WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS, (ii) THE SERVICES WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, TIMELY, SECURE, OR ERROR-FREE, (iii) THE RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE USE OF THE SERVICES WILL BE ACCURATE OR RELIABLE, (iv) THE QUALITY OF ANY PRODUCTS, SERVICES, INFORMATION, OR OTHER MATERIAL PURCHASED OR OBTAINED BY YOU THROUGH THE SERVICES WILL MEET YOUR EXPECTATIONS, OR (v) THE SERVICES WILL NOT CONFLICT OR INTERFERE WITH OTHER SERVICES FROM AT&T OR THIRD PARTIES THAT YOU RECEIVE AT YOUR PREMISES.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's a best effort service, and with the properties of TCP and IP it can very so they won't guarantee anything beyond a specifc point.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's a best effort service, and with the properties of TCP and IP it can very so they won't guarantee anything beyond a specifc point.

Including not being able to offer you remotely what you are paying for.

 

[KeepTalking]

Except the current model of the Internet is best effort. We will try and deliver it and and if it doesn't get there so what. This would be amazon saying hey I would like to overnight this package and hope it gets there a little bit faster than normal effort.

No, that's the old model. The new model is best effort only if you pay us more. We will slow down your traffic in favor of our upcoming service that will compete with yours, and we could give a shit about our actual customers who are already paying us to provide unfettered access to your service, because they have no choice, and because profit$.

Except what the article had and the easiest to implement for the telcos is just allowing a customer to prioritize their traffic so when their is congestion, it goes to the front of the line.

Which is exactly the opposite of Net Neutrality.

And what people don't understand. When you by that 10Mb home service, it's not 10Mb service to any site, just 10Mb to the central office.

Which 'people' are those? I am certainly not one of them, so I am not sure why you even bring it up.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except the current model of the Internet is best effort. We will try and deliver it and and if it doesn't get there so what. This would be amazon saying hey I would like to overnight this package and hope it gets there a little bit faster than normal effort.

No, that's the old model. The new model is best effort only if you pay us more. We will slow down your traffic in favor of our upcoming service that will compete with yours, and we could give a shit about our actual customers who are already paying us to provide unfettered access to your service, because they have no choice, and because profit$.

Except what the article had and the easiest to implement for the telcos is just allowing a customer to prioritize their traffic so when their is congestion, it goes to the front of the line.

Which is exactly the opposite of Net Neutrality.

And what people don't understand. When you by that 10Mb home service, it's not 10Mb service to any site, just 10Mb to the central office.

Which 'people' are those? I am certainly not one of them, so I am not sure why you even bring it up.

And I would argue that net neutrality is just a guide, not an outside rule. Some companies can say yes, some can say no and let companies experiment with it.

 

[ksen]

On a related note that makes Wheeler not look like a big a shit as he probably really is:

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler told the cable industry today that he will "preempt state laws that ban competition from community broadband."